Bug#874090: debian-policy: Clarify wording of some passages

Control: tags -1 = pending Ben Finney writes: > I have made some minor clarifying changes while working on another bug > report. > These changes do not have any substantive effect on the intended meaning > of the passages, only to clarity of expression. Thanks, these all look good to me. Appl

Processed: Re: Bug#874090: debian-policy: Clarify wording of some passages

Processing control commands: > tags -1 = pending Bug #874090 [debian-policy] debian-policy: Clarify wording of some passages Added tag(s) pending; removed tag(s) patch. -- 874090: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874090 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org wi

Bug#873456: debian-policy: missing anchor: document-index

Paul Wise writes: > There are several links that point to the document-index anchor, but it > is not available in the document. This is especially annoying for users > of text-based browsers because it means that there is no easy way to > get to the Table of Contents, which used to be at the top

Bug#874095: copyright-format: Use the “synopsis” term established in the definition

Control: tags -1 pending Ben Finney writes: > The term “synopsis” is established in the definition of “Formatted > Text”. This attached patch uses that term more consistently in the > document. Thanks, looks good to me. Applied. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)

Processed: Re: Bug#874095: copyright-format: Use the “synopsis” term established in the definition

Processing control commands: > tags -1 pending Bug #874095 [debian-policy] copyright-format: Use the “synopsis” term established in the definition Added tag(s) pending. -- 874095: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874095 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w

Bug#880992: debian-policy should not recommend running editor using absolute path

Control: tags -1 patch Jonathan Nieder writes: > If read strictly, this says that I must use "/usr/bin/editor" instead of > invoking "editor" from the $PATH. (I'm not sure I agree with that > interpretation, but it came up in https://bugs.debian.org/682347.) > Running "editor" from the $PATH in

Processed: Re: Bug#880992: debian-policy should not recommend running editor using absolute path

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #880992 [debian-policy] debian-policy should not recommend running editor using absolute path Added tag(s) patch. -- 880992: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880992 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with pr

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 885219 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to '

Bug#879048: debian-policy: footnote links pointing to wrong location

Reiner Herrmann writes: > I noticed that some footnote links in the HTML output are pointing to > wrong locations. For example in [12.3] there is a footnote "[7]", which > links to "#id17". But instead of leading to the footnote text, the > target is some wrong location in section 4.12. Yeah,

Bug#876241: debian-policy: Produce HTML output that doesn't try to load any JavaScript

Sean Whitton writes: > Per the discussion in #871944, at least for now we intend the version of > Policy published on www.debian.org to be free of JavaScript. So we need > to include a JavaScript-free version in our package. For what it's worth, I feel like avoiding Javascript here is excessive

Bug#876075: Anchors are non-unique in the single-HTML version

Andrey Rahmatullin writes: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 4.1.0.0 > Severity: normal > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#version > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html#introduction > etc. > This breaks the ToC. More troublingly, this also breaks all the footnotes.

Bug#601455: Steps towards a patch to document disabling a daemon upon installation

Ian Jackson writes: > Sean Whitton writes: >> 2. Do we need to include any text saying *why* the /etc/default practice >>is a bad idea? I couldn't come up with a succinct way to state it. >>In general, I think we can err on the side of not including the text, >>since we have policy b

Bug#885219: /lib64 provision added in 9.1.1 prohibits multilib libc

Control: tags -1 patch Russ Allbery writes: > As explained by Aurelian Jarno: >>> 9.1.1 >>> Only the dynamic linker may install files to /lib64/. >> How is that supposed to work for the multilib glibc? For example >> libc6-amd64:i386 installs all its libraries into /lib64. We don't want >>

Processed: Re: Bug#885219: /lib64 provision added in 9.1.1 prohibits multilib libc

Processing control commands: > tags -1 patch Bug #885219 [debian-policy] /lib64 provision added in 9.1.1 prohibits multilib libc Added tag(s) patch. -- 885219: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=885219 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Sean Whitton writes: > diff --git a/policy/ch-relationships.rst b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > index 3a73f7b..499bed9 100644 > --- a/policy/ch-relationships.rst > +++ b/policy/ch-relationships.rst > @@ -598,17 +598,26 @@ earlier for binary packages) in order to invoke the > targets in > Additi

Re: Debian Policy 4.1.0.0 released

Aurelien Jarno writes: > On 2017-08-22 09:42, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Aurelien Jarno writes: >>> On 2017-08-21 14:35, Sean Whitton wrote: 9.1.1 Only the dynamic linker may install files to /lib64/. >>> How is that supposed to work for the multilib glibc? For example >>> libc6-amd64

Bug#688251: #688251: Built-Using description too aggressive

Sean Whitton writes: > On Mon, Aug 28 2017, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Sean Whitton writes: >>> +This field should not be used for purposes other than satisfying >>> +license requirements to provide full source code. >> The DFSG requires source code to be provided too... > Can you suggest a bet

Bug#885219: /lib64 provision added in 9.1.1 prohibits multilib libc

Package: debian-policy Version: 4.1.2.0 Severity: important As explained by Aurelian Jarno: >> 9.1.1 >> Only the dynamic linker may install files to /lib64/. > How is that supposed to work for the multilib glibc? For example > libc6-amd64:i386 installs all its libraries into /lib64. We don't

Processed: Re: Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Processing control commands: > tags -1 = pending Bug #810381 [debian-policy] Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to recommend encryption Added tag(s) pending. -- 810381: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=810381 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with prob

Bug#810381: debian-policy: Update wording of 5.6.26 VCS-* fields to reflect the need for security

Control: tags -1 = pending Holger Levsen writes: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:20:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> --- a/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-controlfields.rst >> @@ -962,6 +962,10 @@ repository where the Debian source package is developed. >> >> More than one d

Bug#682347: mark 'editor' virtual package name as obsolete

Re-adding Jordi to this thread as the maintainer of GNU nano. Christoph Berg writes: > I'm not vetoing any outcome - I'm just expressing my astonishment > here. To me, the situation looks like that the current implementation of > "editor" is like 80% ok, and because reaching 100% is hard (to whi

Re: FYI: policy git repository moved to salsa.debian.org

Sean Whitton writes: > The salsa admins have made it clear that a database reset is now > unlikely, so let's move our repo. > New repo: https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy > You probably want: > % git remote set-url origin > % g...@salsa.debian.org:dbnpolicy/policy.git git remote

FYI: policy git repository moved to salsa.debian.org

Hello, The salsa admins have made it clear that a database reset is now unlikely, so let's move our repo. New repo: https://salsa.debian.org/dbnpolicy/policy You probably want: % git remote set-url origin % g...@salsa.debian.org:dbnpolicy/policy.git git remote update Policy Editors: I

Re: salsa.debian.org (git.debian.org replacement) going into beta

Hello, On Mon, Dec 25 2017, Alexander Wirt wrote: > For larger, already-established teams it is also possible to ask us to > create the group with a name not conforming to the normal team > namespace. Examples are teams like *debian-qa*. Please create an > issue in the support[1] project. I req